Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

Alun · 25-04-2013 10:28am

corktina wrote: »

leaving cost aside, i think that the thing that would make such a project a non starter would be the unwillingness of the Welsh and English people to allow a new railway line to be built across their country with very little benefit to them.

Not only that, but it would present a lot of engineering and environmental challenges considering the terrain along a large section of the North Wales coast, and onward to North Cheshire. The main areas of habitation, along with the A55 and current rail line hug the coast there, with some good sized hills further inland. I'd struggle to see where they could even physically fit in an HS2 line let alone overcome all the local objections on noise grounds.

cgcsb · 25-04-2013 11:31am

corktina wrote: »

leaving cost aside, i think that the thing that would make such a project a non starter would be the unwillingness of the Welsh and English people to allow a new railway line to be built across their country with very little benefit to them. When you consider the opposition being mounted to HS2 at the moment and that it doesn't even link up half of their Country, what chance is there that they'd allow us (effectively) to build a Hi-Speed line across their country?

For any tunnel to be go-er it would have to be from Belfast to Scotland (ie internal UK) with the added benefit of HS3 northwards through England linking Scotland into the system. Even this will never happen!

Excellent point. we've just seen recently how every unionist with an axe to grind in Tyrone was up in arms about the oh so catholic intentions of connecting Donegal to Dublin via their heartland.

corktina · 25-04-2013 12:57pm

well I'm not suggesting a Sectarian opposition to a line across Britain, but there certainly would be a Nimby opposition (to pretty much anything if I know them!)

tharlear · 25-04-2013 1:29pm

well I'm not suggesting a Sectarian opposition to a line across Britain, but there certainly would be a Nimby opposition (to pretty much anything if I know them!)

Something that would never happen in Ireland? In fact the chances of nimby's stopping it on the Irish side are just if not more likely!

etchyed · 25-04-2013 2:08pm

tharlear wrote: »

Something that would never happen in Ireland? In fact the chances of nimby's stopping it on the Irish side are just if not more likely!

I think the "them" in corktina's post refers to NIMBYs in gerneral, rather than the Welsh. Best not to read into things too much.

Curly Judge · 27-04-2013 9:47pm

I'd like to make a little prediction!
These undersea rail links [any of them] will be given the green light in the same year Mary O'Rourke brings the Winter Olympics to Athlone.

Joe Public · 27-04-2013 9:54pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

I'd like to make a little prediction!
These undersea rail links [any of them] will be given the green light in the same year Mary O'Rourke brings the Winter Olympics to Athlone.

You should know that that can't be true as the Winter Olympics if staged in Ireland will likely be in Mayo

corktina · 28-04-2013 8:26am

Only the Womens Wrestling will be in Mayo, and only then if we can't get Jello

Curly Judge · 28-04-2013 9:07am

corktina wrote: »

Only the Womens Wrestling will be in Mayo, and only then if we can't get Jello

Now you are being just plain silly!
Everyone knows that they don't do woman's wrestling in the winter olympics.
Surely?:)

Joe Public · 28-04-2013 5:19pm

Will ye keep up please, they are already in training for the wrestling

Curly Judge · 28-04-2013 8:16pm

Joe Public wrote: »

Will ye keep up please, they are already in training for the wrestling

I submit!

bawn79 · 30-04-2013 8:52am

Was discussing a trip to Sicily over the weekend where my wife said she had taken a train ferry over to the island from Italy while traveling years ago. I couldn't believe such a thing existed but when I checked up they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_ferry

Would this be of any potential benefit in the debate of a tunnel from Ireland to Britain? Maybe as an interim measure between building a tunnel, perhaps first constructing railway lines either side first which could be linked via a train ferry. If the train ferry could pay for the railway line over 20-30 years, then maybe the next step would be to build the tunnel which wouldn't have the capital cost of the rail lines attached to it.
Just throwing it out there as a brainstorming idea.

corktina · 30-04-2013 8:56am

well apart from the different gauges, what's the difference between bringing over a wagon or a container? You surely aren't advocating passnger train ferries?

bawn79 · 30-04-2013 9:58am

corktina wrote: »

well apart from the different gauges, what's the difference between bringing over a wagon or a container? You surely aren't advocating passnger train ferries?

Sorry I'm not advocating anything, I just didn't know train ferries existed and just said I'd post the idea for brainstorming purposes.
In terms of wagons versus containers, just off the top of my head I suppose a lot fewer drivers involved. I suppose why do we transport some freight on trains currently versus trucks? I imagine its more efficient in terms of fuel per load.

corktina · 30-04-2013 10:21am

no I meant what advantage would there be over loading a container from a train to the ferry and back to a train. Seems to me that doing it that way overcomes the gauge problem as you use a different set of wheels each side,.

Train ferries used to operate (and probably still do from Harwich to the Hook) across the English Channel. Possibly the Tunnel has killed them all off

bawn79 · 30-04-2013 11:57am

corktina wrote: »

no I meant what advantage would there be over loading a container from a train to the ferry and back to a train. Seems to me that doing it that way overcomes the gauge problem as you use a different set of wheels each side,.

Train ferries used to operate (and probably still do from Harwich to the Hook) across the English Channel. Possibly the Tunnel has killed them all off

Does the train not drive onto a ferry fully loaded and then off the other side? (Ignoring gauge for min) Therefore the loading / unloading is removed?

cgcsb · 30-04-2013 12:05pm

It's a novel idea, but it would also suffer from some of the same set backs as the tunnel idea, i.e. different gauges may require specially adapted trains and it would require the UK government to construct a high speed branch line into north Wales, something that wouldn't really be of much benefit to them because (unlike the channel tunnel to France) they'd be connecting themselves to a comparatively small economy in an age of low fare airlines. There's also the problem of Welsh nationalism, if a high speed line went through the sparsely populated north of Wales just to form an international link to Ireland(possibly with no stops in Wales), then Cardiff would have to be connected to the high speed network also.

corktina · 30-04-2013 12:18pm

i don't think we are talking high speed lines here, existing lines are perfect for freight, if there was any.

I think there would be less capacity and therefore a train ferry would be less economic than a container ship.

Jim Martin · 30-04-2013 4:14pm

British Rail used to operate a freight train ferry from Harwich to Zeebrugge until 1987:

http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/794

Jim Martin · 30-04-2013 4:41pm

and a passenger one from Dover to Dunkirk until it was replaced by the Chunnel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Ferry

Jim Martin · 30-04-2013 4:49pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

and a passenger one from Dover to Dunkirk until it was replaced by the Chunnel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Ferry

I once had the pleasure of travelling on this and it was quite an experience I can tell you. The operation of being shunted onto the ferry made it impossible to sleep until we got well under way on the French metals owing to my excitement with all the fascinating activity!

petronius · 29-10-2014 11:58am

tunnel from dublin to holyhead - sounds far fetched and too expensive would have to be considered as some part of a long term High-Speed Rail link from Dublin-Manchester-London and with the trouble over High Speed in the home counties i cant see it happening.
A tunnel say 40miles is an engineering challenge and economically punitive -it would cost the equivalent of baling out Anglo Irish Bank or more!
-
before there was scheduled rail services from london via wales ferry to rosslare and on to killarney

Idbatterim · 29-10-2014 6:29pm

look at that sham that is Dublin rail transport, this is cloud cuckoo land stuff. If the airports made parking on site cheaper and guaranteed no more than 15 min security wait, they could make up a lot of ground. Fairly simple and cheap stuff to do... Also new planes are posting considerable fuel savings and lowering the passenger cost per mile or whatever other metrics they use...

corktina · 29-10-2014 7:18pm

how are you going to get the planes into the tunnel?

Sam Russell · 29-10-2014 7:43pm

corktina wrote: »

how are you going to get the planes into the tunnel?

He is just winging it.

cgcsb · 29-10-2014 8:03pm

What'd be a good measure of demand is if HS2 was extended from Birmingham to Hollyhead and rail and sail packages are competitively priced with well timed connections. London in 4:30. A tunnel under the Irish sea could potentially knock 1:30 off that time, maybe more. So assuming a 3 you journey, that'd be about competitive with air travel assuming theres a nice price

monument · 29-10-2014 8:23pm

The problem with talking about this is not that politicians can't see beyond the next election, it's that 90% or more of the population can not even think think beyond the next election and you can forget about projects like this which are not so much needed now but could be a massive help in 20 or 50 years down the road.

cgcsb wrote: »

What'd be a good measure of demand is if HS2 was extended from Birmingham to Hollyhead and rail and sail packages are competitively priced with well timed connections. London in 4:30. A tunnel under the Irish sea could potentially knock 1:30 off that time, maybe more. So assuming a 3 you journey, that'd be about competitive with air travel assuming theres a nice price

Nobody is going to fund extending HS2 to a ferry and limited local population around it.

Depending on what kind of capacity is left on HS2 (with HS3 feeding into it), then maybe you could run high speed trains to the ferry where they run at current or improved local speed until they get back to HS2. This is what is done with ICE TD trains on the Berlin-Hamburg-Copenhagen route etc, which is not high speed track all the way.

Idbatterim wrote: »

look at that sham that is Dublin rail transport, this is cloud cuckoo land stuff. If the airports made parking on site cheaper and guaranteed no more than 15 min security wait, they could make up a lot of ground. Fairly simple and cheap stuff to do... Also new planes are posting considerable fuel savings and lowering the passenger cost per mile or whatever other metrics they use...

Parking in Dublin Airport or any Irish airport won't be much help when (not if) the slots in the south of England's major airports are more limited and are valued too much to give many of them to flights to Ireland.

cgcsb · 29-10-2014 11:28pm

monument wrote: »

Nobody is going to fund extending HS2 to a ferry and limited local population around it.

Obviously the town of hollyhead wouldn't be the target market. Dublin to London is the busiest international air route on Earth, a reliable sail and rail could well take a chunk out if the Ryanair monopoly

L1011 · 29-10-2014 11:50pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Obviously the town of hollyhead wouldn't be the target market. Dublin to London is the busiest international air route on Earth, a reliable sail and rail could well take a chunk out if the Ryanair monopoly

Two issues here

1: Not a chance it'd have any impact - there's still a two hour boat trip, no matter what you do rail-wise

2: Ryanair monopoly? Not sure what planet you're on. Aer Lingus are the dominant carrier on the London route (as well as to nearly every point in the UK since they went prop on smaller routes, as they have the advantage in timings and frequency) but specifically on London you have:

Aer Lingus to LHR/LGW
Flybe to LCY/SEN
Ryanair to LTN/LGW/STN
British Airways to LHR/LCY
Cityjet to LCY
Stobart to SEN

Considering the competition there and the resulting pricing, and the huge amount that would need to be recouped for HSR, how on earth do you think it could be competitively priced in the first place? Take a look at pricing to London City right now for example.

Jim Martin · 30-10-2014 5:52am

If air passengers & freight transporters had to pay the actual cost of the vast pollution they are causing, then it would be a whole new 'ball-game'!

corktina · 30-10-2014 9:51am

Jim Martin wrote: »

If air passengers & freight transporters had to pay the actual cost of the vast pollution they are causing, then it would be a whole new 'ball-game'!

Indeed so and rail would be gone. Ancient hulking great diesel locos are much more polluting than modern cars and trucks and there is no case for replacing them. Just think what the Carbon Footprint would be of driving a high speed rail route to Holyhead.

monument · 30-10-2014 10:55am

corktina wrote: »

Indeed so and rail would be gone. Ancient hulking great diesel locos are much more polluting than modern cars and trucks and there is no case for replacing them. Just think what the Carbon Footprint would be of driving a high speed rail route to Holyhead.

Err... Coca-Cola clam to be making a CO2 reduction by using trains over trucks. So do many companies in the UK.

That's without switching to electric.

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 11:11am

corktina wrote: »

Indeed so and rail would be gone. Ancient hulking great diesel locos are much more polluting than modern cars and trucks and there is no case for replacing them. Just think what the Carbon Footprint would be of driving a high speed rail route to Holyhead.

I don't know where you get your information from but modern cars and trucks are certainly less efficient than diesel locomotion both in terms of carbon emission and traffic congestion. And a switch to electric trains would certainly leave cars and trucks in the dust in the efficiency stakes.

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 11:20am

MYOB wrote: »

Two issues here

1: Not a chance it'd have any impact - there's still a two hour boat trip, no matter what you do rail-wise

HS2 can get a passenger between London and Birmingham in 49 minutes. If a line between Birmingham and Hollyhead could be constructed and connections were well timed, that could be London-Dublin in 4 hours and arguably a nicer way to travel. Flying, including security queues and transferes to the city centre, means you couldn't really do the same journey by air in under 3:30 minutes(that's if you're fast). So yes I'd consider that to be competitive, the price is key though, especially since the UKs rail is privatised(and heavily subsidised, go figure).

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 11:25am

MYOB wrote: »

Considering the competition there and the resulting pricing, and the huge amount that would need to be recouped for HSR, how on earth do you think it could be competitively priced in the first place? Take a look at pricing to London City right now for example.

The capital costs of the infrastructure don't need to be recouped in ticket sales. High speed rail is an investment governments make into their economies. The benefits of high speed rail are agglomeration, carbon emission reduction, reduced road congestion, more money spent here than exported to oil barons etc.

darklighter · 30-10-2014 11:30am

cgcsb wrote: »

Obviously the town of hollyhead wouldn't be the target market. Dublin to London is the busiest international air route on Earth, a reliable sail and rail could well take a chunk out if the Ryanair monopoly

Eh, 2nd busiest, about a million behind Hong Kong-Taiwan I believe

corktina · 30-10-2014 11:35am

monument wrote: »

Err... Coca-Cola clam to be making a CO2 reduction by using trains over trucks. So do many companies in the UK.

That's without switching to electric.

You could save more CO2 by not drinking Coke in the first place!

corktina · 30-10-2014 11:37am

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't know where you get your information from but modern cars and trucks are certainly less efficient than diesel locomotion both in terms of carbon emission and traffic congestion. And a switch to electric trains would certainly leave cars and trucks in the dust in the efficiency stakes.

Modern locos yes, (maybe) we don't have them. Electric trains use fossil fuels too and what about the carbon footprint of building the infrastructure?

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 11:46am

darklighter wrote: »

Eh, 2nd busiest, about a million behind Hong Kong-Taiwan I believe

Don't both countries claim sovereignty over the other though? I suppose legally they are separate countries, but it's a bit grey, so yes let's say 2nd busiest.

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 11:52am

corktina wrote: »

Modern locos yes, (maybe) we don't have them.

No, a single occupant car driving from Dublin to Cork produces multiples more carbon emissions than a single passenger on a train doing same journey.

corktina wrote: »

Electric trains use fossil fuels too

They use a % of fossil fuels and a %renewables(and nuclear in some countries). Fossil fuels being burned in a power plant for energy is again many times more efficient than fossil fules that are burned for energy in a combustion engine.

corktina wrote: »

and what about the carbon footprint of building the infrastructure?

What about it? It'd be quickly offset by the passengers that'd switch from air travel(the most carbon intensive form of transport)

corktina · 30-10-2014 11:58am

cgcsb wrote: »

No, a single occupant car driving from Dublin to Cork produces multiples more carbon emissions than a single passenger on a train doing same journey.

They use a % of fossil fuels and a %renewables(and nuclear in some countries). Fossil fuels being burned in a power plant for energy is again many times more efficient than fossil fules that are burned for energy in a combustion engine.

What about it? It'd be quickly offset by the passengers that'd switch from air travel(the most carbon intensive form of transport)

Source?

monument · 30-10-2014 12:17pm

corktina wrote: »

You could save more CO2 by not drinking Coke in the first place!

In the same vain we could save emitting by not anything by stopping shipping anything anywhere.

monument · 30-10-2014 12:23pm

corktina wrote: »

Electric trains use fossil fuels too

They use a mix fossil fuels and renewables, and power plants and the grid is still far more efficient -- Google it if you want a source.

corktina wrote: »

...and what about the carbon footprint of building the infrastructure?

Far less that that of building motorway networks, and the ongoing maintaince of rail is far, far less.

corktina · 30-10-2014 12:32pm

monument wrote: »

In the same vain we could save emitting by not anything by stopping shipping anything anywhere.

not everything has CO2 added to it....

Jim Martin · 30-10-2014 12:39pm

I think the only thing that can beat rail overland transport for economy are large canals with large barges (as on the Rhine)!

monument · 30-10-2014 12:46pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

I think the only thing that can beat rail overland transport for economy are large canals with large barges (as on the Rhine)!

And for heavy cargo... Mag-lev...

Carawaystick · 30-10-2014 1:50pm

cgcsb wrote: »

No, a single occupant car driving from Dublin to Cork produces multiples more carbon emissions than a single passenger on a train doing same journey.

I can't believe a car with driver only uses more fuel, than a train with only a driver and passenger. Even if it was just a single carriage.

lucernarian · 30-10-2014 1:59pm

monument wrote: »

They use a mix fossil fuels and renewables, and power plants and the grid is still far more efficient -- Google it if you want a source.

Shouldn't the person asserting the fact be the one to prove it? Exactly what that figure would be is somewhat more tricky to answer in Ireland - though I reckon electrification would be the more beneficial towards reducing CO2 emissions.

In the context of building a huge and lengthy tunnel under the sea, the initial cost of carbon intensive resources would have to be noted if anyone wanted to compare with alternative solutions.

L1011 · 30-10-2014 2:02pm

cgcsb wrote: »

HS2 can get a passenger between London and Birmingham in 49 minutes. If a line between Birmingham and Hollyhead could be constructed and connections were well timed, that could be London-Dublin in 4 hours and arguably a nicer way to travel. Flying, including security queues and transferes to the city centre, means you couldn't really do the same journey by air in under 3:30 minutes(that's if you're fast). So yes I'd consider that to be competitive, the price is key though, especially since the UKs rail is privatised(and heavily subsidised, go figure).

4 hours is hopelessly optimistic. Try loading a full train of passengers on to a boat in any short period.

There is an airport in London city centre if you want to compare city to city times specifically. Rather a lot of passengers to the outlying airports are either going to somewhere closer to that airport or transferring to another flight out of the country anyway.

Jim Martin · 30-10-2014 2:10pm

monument wrote: »

And for heavy cargo... Mag-lev...

Doesn't maglev use an inordinate amount of power/electricity compared with trad rail contact?

Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

Comments